Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Duh, I was replying to the joke with another joke as an introduction and then went on to say something a little more serious (as much as American football can let me). It's not my fault my humor is not your humor...

They'll probably ban the person specifically, if it became an actual issue for them. One could argue how successful enforcing it would be, but nothing says they have to let them attend the games. For what it's worth, I understand both sides of this issue. However, I don't give a crap about either side.

(Yes, I am aware that this is a university game, but any game where the sponsors control the media exposure in order to profit is at least semi-pro in nature to me, since being "Pro" is all about whether you get income from it)

Seriously, This harms ALL sports caster to have the university dictate how things will happen.
if ALL of the news sources would simply skip a couple of games, then the sports director would quickly change their mind.

I think the issue here is that a print reporter essentially becomes a broadcast journalist when tweeting the game play by play. The make royalty from the authorized broadcasts of the game and want people watching/listening to those instead of following tweets in near real time to which they get no income from.

The news sources won't skip the games because the readers/viewers/customers will look for the information if they do not carry it. Its essentially sending customers to the competition where they might like something and stay.

I don't think it matters if it lessens the ability to generate revenue from the authorized broadcasts.

When I listen to a game on the radio, its all background noise until the commentator sounds excited, then I pay attention because something interesting just happened and they will repeat it. So for me, yes it could replace it. But if it makes the revenue from the radio or tv covering it worth less, its still a problem.

If the university suddenly found themselves blacklisted from media reporting everywhere, they would change their tune quickly.

In fantasy land they would find themselves blacklisted. In the real world, there will be plenty of people who will accept the conditions in order to pick up the readers the other outlets will be losing.

People have got to be trained that the only sustainable liberty is managed liberty.
Bandwidth is a precious resource, and we cannot allow our Precious Bodily Phrases to be diminished by more than 20 Tweets per event. People could get excited, and drive up medical expenses.
Of course, managing communications will require a comprehensive regulatory regime. That means jobs. Now, don't get all wrapped around the fact that a day spent poring over Twitter logs and tallying Tweets has no real product. It's a job, and that means a reliable vote from the sucker in the chair.
The act of fining people for Exuberant Tweeting, of course, is a revenue stream of the government. That means more tax agents, bean counters, and a few more lines on the tax code. Don't worry; the tax code isn't predicted to topple until its height exceeds 10,000 meters.

This is just idiotic on the part of someone at the university. Perhaps the reporters should respond by limiting their articles to something roughly equivalent to 20 tweets. Most tweets are extremely short. Maybe a total of 800 characters would be sufficient. Let's see how the administration truly likes reduced coverage of their product.

Reporters are allowed access to the event with the understanding that their reports will be published after the fact, thus protecting the value of the real-time reporting being done by the broadcast partners. All this rule is doing is telling the other reporters that they can't publish their content in real time.

These new rules are in response to newer technology, but other restrictions have been in place for years to protect licensees.

For example, as a spectator you aren't allowed to video record an event. Often you are not allowed to bring a "professional" grade still camera, either. (Of course, improvements in camera technology are making it easier to surreptitiously get around these restrictions.) The purpose of those restrictions is to force anyone wanting to see video or photos of the event to go to the licensee -- and pay for the privilege either directly or through advertising.

Exactly this. I know our athletics department has been worried about people tuning out of the traditional media (Radio/TV) and trying to catch the game via twitter updates. This, in their mind, reduces the media partner's viability because of lost ad listens, and essentially brings a third "live media" into the mix -- one that may not have been authorized to do live media.

The same tech that jams cellular data, also jams tweets, and the same faraday cage shielding that blocks radio transmission also blocks tweets.Shielding is passive, and can easily be done as they build a covered arena. An open arena can be shielded by the height of the faraday walls, since cellular is line of sight. Jamming is probably illegal, but cheaper, but may be legal in your own closed space (the Arena)

How will people like no cell coverage inside arenas? No tweets? Will people actually welcome the e

I think we're all missing the elephant in the room. What the fuck has college got to do with sports? As far as I'm concerned, the sports scholarhips should be abandoned, and large-audience college sports banned. College is there to teach people things, not to entertain the masses. Professional sports are professional entertainment. It's no business of any college to offer that. I'm well aware of the U.S. reality where college sports attract donors and shit, but perhaps people should get a long hard look in

Why on Earth would I offer a scholarship for someone who, ostensibly, diverts their time to things *other* than pursuit of knowledge (namely: sports)?! Scholarships should be for kids who, I dunno, are good at learning things, doing resarch, that sort of thing?

You act as if there's nothing to be learned from playing sports. There's plenty, both strategy and teamwork spring to mind immediately. Also, sports give the opportunity to many socio-economically disadvantaged people to obtain a college education that they might not have otherwise had access to. Most colleges that have sports programs also have programs specifically aimed at those athletes to help them succeed academically. Does every college athlete graduate? No, but I think there are a great deal more th

You act as if there's nothing to be learned from playing sports. There's plenty, both strategy and teamwork spring to mind immediately.

You are addressing an audience largely involved in intellectual pursuits. Teamwork and loyalty to the organization are less important than the physics or logic supporting our decisions. If that is wrong, then the team is wrong. Not a concept I see much from ex-jock co-workers and management.

The whole concept of needing competition to achieve some goal runs counter to the drive to continually improve a product or process absent that competition.

Also, sports give the opportunity to many socio-economically disadvantaged people to obtain a college education that they might not have otherwise had access to.

While I agree with you that the degree of college sports has grown far beyond its usefulness, it was based on solid ideas. Take people who are good at sports, get them into college, make them maintain a decent GPA and show them off to the world. All the other underprivelleged children can then look at what that person has acheived an be motivated to try themselves. Lifting up the lower parts of our society is an important part of the role sports play.

Why the heck would I care, as an employer other than a sports team, or a college admissions counselor, that someone was good at sports? I care that they are good at science or art or engineering or medicine or business or whatever their education will be in, or their job will be in. Yeah, the kiddo is a good team player. So what. He's a good team player who wouldn't know a Newton's law from Declaration of Independence. Collegiate sports are based on a false premise, pure and simple. Yeah, there are notable

Actually, it was the other way around. People who went to school to pursue academic interests but also had aptitude for playing sports did so. They'd play, but with the idea that they'd be getting out of school and going into a profession related to their education. But then college (and sadly high school) has become a farm team for the NFL and NBA.

Whatever you learn playing sports can be learned doing whatever it is that you're supposed to be doing in the first place. So that argument doesn't fly with me. It's a diversion of precious time, pure and simple, never mind a cost on the various college medical insurance programs. Football isn't really a low-risk, low-injury thing.

As for socioeconomically disadvantaged people: hey, someone organizes their sports activities. It's rare that they'd be coming straight from their neighborhood court ready to rake

“I think just generally speaking is what we’re trying to do is steer people toward partnerships we have with radio, television and our own web presence,” Moore said. “We don’t want people taken way from that experience.”

that it's supposedly an university.. sounds to me like it's a pro sports team first and everything else second.

Most colleges have contracts with local TV and radio stations (sometimes national, like Notre Dame). These contracts charge a premium amount for the right to "Live" coverage. Sports Journalists are not given the right to real-time reporting, they have to purchase it. Why? Because the current legal understanding is that college sporting events are not public events, even for public universities.

Who the hell cares if it's a 'public event' or not? Is there some magical law making it illegal to report what someone is seeing at a _private_ event?

Once again, we have the blow-job giving media scared to death of the people they are actually supposed to be reporting on. At least here it's about pointless sports instead of politics, but it's still completely idiotic.

Here is something that everyone in the goddamn universe needs drilled into their head: YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE HOW THE MEDIA REPORTS ON YOU

Reporter or whoever is talking to me and pauses to tweet "real time" thoughts and the interview/conversation ends right there. I hate it when one person is having a conversation with another person and either of them think it's okay to "check their phone" let alone actually read or type something on it. It's rude. However, what Cassian Elwes did was misuse twitter. It wasn't real time. Putting all the tweets together the story is very poorly written. It's feigned real-time stream of consciousness an

But in this case it's not their employer imposing the restriction. It's the University, who don't want people "tuning" into Twitter for a play-by-play - they want them tuning in to the local radio or TV stations that have paid handsomely for the broadcast privileges.

I read the rationale, it's still stupid. If you're putting on a show, and the value of that show is compromised by Twitter, there's not much value in that show to begin with. Are people going to avoid seeing Bob Dylan in concert because the music reporter tweets the setlist? Are people going to avoid a production of Shakespeare because the theatre critic tweets "Macduff kills MacBeth"? No, the value of these events is in the performance, an experience that can't be communicated through Twitter.

That's only because reporters are a reliable way to get the information. Once reporters are capped, that all changes and people will have to find their information from somewhere else. All it would take is a few students to set up a "UW sports tweets" account. There will be a demand for unofficial reporting when official reporting is censored.

Actually, @Todd_Dybas has a follower count of 436. This isn't a lot. I have over 1,000 followers and regularly talk to people on Twitter whose follower count vastly exceeds my own. Were Todd Dybas and I to attend a game and both live tweet it, would he be kicked out since he's a journalist but I'd be allowed because I'm just a spectator? Or would I be kicked out too for daring to tweet more than 20 times during the game?

He'd have his press privileges revoked which would mean no backstage access, no access to the players outside what a fan would have, etc. He would still be free to purchase a ticket and live tweet the event but he would lose the access that the university has offered him as a member of the press. It's their facilities and they are free to do so, but is that what the fans who ultimately drive the revenue for the universities athletic department want?

It's the University, who don't want people "tuning" into Twitter for a play-by-play - they want them tuning in to the local radio or TV stations that have paid handsomely for the broadcast privileges.

UW's failure to grasp the realities of the modern world doesn't make a bit of difference.

Although they could revoke the "credentials" of a traditional-media reporter (ironically, the one group they do need to appease for the advertising revenue), how do they plan to stop a "random fan" from tweeting as much as he wants? 20 tweets? That doesn't even come out to one-per-scored-point in most sports. I've seen people send twice that (well, I've only "seen" them text, can't say for sure if they tweeted it) just in the top of the first inning!

Let UW have its little pissing contes - They'll lose, of course, but it might provide some entertainment to watch (cue them learning about the "Streisand" effect at their next game in 3... 2...1...).

They understand the 'modern world' perfectly well. They also understand things like 'exclusive contracts' and 'source of income'.

What the 'modern world' needs to learn is that just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean it is right to do that thing, or that doing that thing has no long-term negative effects. Yes, some idiot can tweet the entire play-by-play. But what do you think will happen to UW's basketball program when it no longer is a source of revenue (or loses even more money t

They understand the 'modern world' perfectly well. They also understand things like 'exclusive contracts' and 'source of income'.

What the 'modern world' needs to learn is that just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean it is right to do that thing, or that doing that thing has no long-term negative effects. Yes, some idiot can tweet the entire play-by-play. But what do you think will happen to UW's basketball program when it no longer is a source of revenue (or loses even more money than it does now, if that is the case)?

Maybe if their basketball and other sports programs are no longer a source of revenue, the university will go back to focusing on education.

To be blunt, I don't give a shit. UW's Basketball program is not entiteled to revenue. It is entitled to use old world revenue streams. And it is not entitled to protection of those revenue streams through threats of force (read: the courts). They are 100% entitled to revoke media cred, that is their right and their choice. However, when the "modern world" routes around their choice in a legal and moral (yes moral) manner, they do not have the right to prevent it. Well yes in some ways they do, they c

UW's failure to grasp the realities of the modern world doesn't make a bit of difference.

Failing to grasp the realities of the modern world is frequently an issue at the University of Washington (my employer). It's not too surprising when this sort of thing comes from faculty, since their connection to the real world is tenuous at best - but I am sometimes left jaw-droppingly aghast at how out of touch some highly-paid staff can be.

But in this case it's not their employer imposing the restriction. It's the University, who don't want people "tuning" into Twitter for a play-by-play - they want them tuning in to the local radio or TV stations that have paid handsomely for the broadcast privileges.

Who cares what the University wants or what TV and radio stations have "paid handsomely" for?

I paid handsomely for my bright pink Hummer H3, but that does not give me the right to demand that my neighbors stop calling me a goof for having bought

Who cares what the University wants or what TV and radio stations have "paid handsomely" for?

Off the top of my head, the University, and the TV and radio stations.

I paid handsomely for my bright pink Hummer H3, but that does not give me the right to demand that my neighbors stop calling me a goof for having bought it or tweeting about my horrible driving.

But your neighbours haven't entered in an agreement with you to give them access to your property in order to watch you driving your car.

This relatively new belief that descriptions of a public event...

The public can attend if they pay. I agree with your point about universities being public institutions - and let's not get into the whole ridiculous college football, situation - but it's not like they wouldn't frown on you for wandering in and attending lectures on your days off from work just because

It's the private school that restricts it, not the reporter boss. From the article:

“I think just generally speaking is what we’re trying to do is steer people toward partnerships we have with radio, television and our own web presence,” Moore said. “We don’t want people taken way from that experience.”

In plain english: "We have deals with radios and the twitter feeds do not generate revenues, so we decided it was better for us if you cannot follow the games in detail with twitter even if you prefer that over radio."

I just adore the way that the school's PR weasel manages to word it as though those cruel journalists are tearing innocent readers 'away from that experience', rather than admit the obvious "apparently following the game on twitter is more engaging than watching or listening to it, at least as broadcast by our paying partners"...

I can't imagine why anyone would want to partake of a game through twitter. I suppose if you're a die hard fan and you are in the car, can't get it on the radio, and go to twitter to see play by plays. But in those cases I usually go to ESPN and watch their real time game tracker. Its not all that exciting, but you can see what's going on. I guess I just get the Twitheads.

It'd be unpleasant(especially for a state school that probably has a lot of taxpayers in the stands at a given game); but perfectly logical if they had some sort of "Due to the increasing non-suckiness of consumer video gear, our lucrative broadcasting deal partners want you over there with the video camera to GTFO".

Tweets, though? Are your partners really so awful at churning out material that people want, in the formats they want it, that a bunch of teeny

Actually, it is a state school which is restricting them. I am curious as to whether this would stand up to a first amendment challenge. Since this involves "credentialed" journalists, who presumably receive free access to the games rather than having to purchase tickets, it certainly might withstand such a challenge.

What First Amendment challenge? Since when does the First Amendment oblige the school to give the reporter credentials? Methinks you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. You do realize that getting credentials is a privilege and not a right, correct?

If that "privilege" is conditioned (by a state institution like a public university) on the content of the coverage, it would absolutely be a First Amendment violation. if the reporter could prove that the reason for denial of press credentials is the content of his reporting, he would win if he brought suit. It's not even a close question on the law; it's proving the necessary facts that might cause problems for such a plaintiff.

In this case, it's a closer question of law. On its face, the restriction is c

The University has no right to infringe upon the civil rights of duly credentialed press members who are there legally and with permission.

It says right there in the Slashdot summary that this is a threat to "revoke the credentials of journalists". It says nothing about hassling the journalists after they have entered the venue. Get over yourself.

Yeah. Because we all know how few people followed collegiate sports before the advent of Twitter. Or the Internet.

The music market is different. People download to try something new out. There are very few potential football fans that wouldn't have thought of attending a game without having read a few Tweets beforehand.